just to preemptively counter some textbooks that may be overly idealistic or flat-out out of date...
consider the following four combinations:
a) properly written kernel mode drivers written in an os with weak kernel mode security (xp, with most hardware combinations).
b)
kernel mode drivers written for an os with weak kernel mode security
being run in an os with strong kernel mode security, and that expects
almost all drivers to run in user mode. (vista/7/8, with some hardware
combinations)
c) badly written user-mode drivers written in an os
with strong kernel mode security, and that expects almost all drivers to
run in user mode. (vista/7/8, with some hardware combinations)
d)
correctly written user-mode drivers written in an os with strong kernel
mode security, and that expects almost all drivers to run in user mode.
(vista/7/8, by design)
the reality will agree with the
textbook in stating that a is faster than d, on the same hardware -
meaning xp is faster by design, but less secure (that's the trade-off).
again, windows 7 on faster hardware may seem faster than windows xp on
slower hardware but that's an apples and oranges comparison that reduces
to an actual comparison of the hardware.
but the
situation i'm talking about is with either b or c, which are both going
to be slow and buggy and which is still the reality with some hardware.
if you think back to '06, vista had a horrible reputation.
this is the actual root of the problem. microsoft understood it
perfectly well. it's support agents (one of whom was me) understood it
perfectly well. the hardware companies understood it perfectly well. but
part of my job was confusing people into blaming intel or nvidia
instead of microsoft. which isn't to say that they didn't share the
blame. but that was microsoft's official strategy - fuck the issue, lie
to the customers. they saw it as a pr game.
i can't
count the number of times where i nearly broke down and just leveled
with the poor bastard on the other side of the line. but, given that
everybody understood that the problem had no solution, my job was to
ensure that the person walked away from the conversation blaming the
person that made their board or chipset or video card, rather than the
company that made an operating system that changed all the industry
standards without proper documentation or sufficient warning.
again, though, it's eight years on, now. there's no excuse for it still being a problem.
so, that's actually something else to take away from this:
if support agents can solve your problem, they will. if they can't,
they will lie to you - and get promoted if they're really good at it.
going back to the usb test, i should point out that my pc
actually has a faster processor, surprisingly, given that the chip is
from 2005. my pc is a pentium D @ 2x3.6. the laptop is an i5 @ 2x2.4.
the difference between ten minutes and 30 seconds is still incredible,
though, and can't be explained purely by the processor speed. especially
given what i know about the way the drivers work...
Friday, March 21, 2014
listen: i worked support for
microsoft. i'm telling you the story from the inside. from microsoft
training. from documents written by microsoft engineers. it might sound
incredible, but it's the actual, blunt truth.
i'm transferring files around right now, and this is a good example. it took almost ten minutes for me to transfer a few gb of files from my laptop (which is running a 64 bit windows 7, with a core i5 and 4 gb of ram - certainly better hardware specs on paper than my desktop) to a usb key. it took 30 seconds to transfer the same data from the same usb to my pc's hard drive, which is currently running an xp x64. if i were to do that on a fully patched vista, it would take ten hours.
ten hours!? yes. ten hours.
...because intel won't update the chipset to conform to the very different driver signing standards. the way windows handles drivers was a huge update from xp to vista.
i'm willing to accept that a lot of hardware manufacturers initially didn't understand how to rewrite their drivers for vista/7/etc. but, they did eventually figure it out. and there's really no excuse for not doing so, other than driving the hardware market.
it's a very widespread problem.
https://www.google.ca/#q=vista+slow+file+transfer&safe=off
all those answers are dead wrong. it's the change in driver framework.
(specifically, chipset drivers)
windows 98 is no longer useable for a number of reasons (for me it's mostly sata drivers), but it would be way faster than xp, too.
generally speaking, the older an operating system is, the faster it is (when compared on the same hardware). of course, it's going to have less functionality. it may be less safe to access the internet with, in theory if not in practice.
this may seem counter-intuitive, but it shouldn't. making something more complex makes it work slower. what doesn't make any sense at all is the idea that upgrading your os will make your machine run faster.
this is a brief explanation.
"If we're only using two isolation rings, it's a bit unclear where device drivers should go-- the code that allows us to use our video cards, keyboards, mice, printers, and so forth. Do these drivers run in Kernel mode, for maximum performance, or do they run in User mode, for maximum stability? In Windows, at least, the answer is it depends. Device drivers can run in either user or kernel mode. Most drivers are shunted to the User side of the fence these days, with the notable exception of video card drivers, which need bare-knuckle Kernel mode performance. But even that is changing; in Windows Vista, video drivers are segmented into User and Kernel sections. Perhaps that's why gamers complain that Vista performs about 10 percent slower in games. "
https://blog.codinghorror.com/understanding-user-and-kernel-mode/
this explains a bit about the actual problem, without getting into it. i don't really want to spend any more time looking around about this. it's something that nobody seems to want to be published. i wouldn't know this if it weren't for reading internal support memos that said DON'T TELL THE CUSTOMERS THIS all over them.
but, as i've stated, this is irreversible on some hardware, without getting the manufacturers to update their drivers. what's happening is that the drivers are running in kernel mode, when microsoft wants them to run in user mode. this is producing huge amounts of security checks (by design) that slow the fuck out of the file operations. what intel needs to do is rewrite their drivers to run in user mode, like microsoft wants them to do. but they'd rather blame it on vista and tell people they have to upgrade their hardware, as microsoft blames it on the hardware manufacturers (at least internally).
https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/hardware/drivers/wdf/user-mode-driver-framework-frequently-asked-questions
the result is unusable hardware, on any windows version beyond and including vista.
but, the design changes in how vista uses drivers make xp faster (by design) anyways.
you can think of it as a trade-off between speed and security. xp is all speed, weaker security. vista is all security. now as the hardware has caught up, it's evened out (in terms of perception). but xp remains inherently waaaaay faster.
i mean, this isn't entirely microsoft's fault. it's as much on intel and others (my problem is with intel, i don't know how much others have caught up. initially, nvidia was dragging their feet on this a whole lot.). but, what the hardware people were saying at the time was that microsoft didn't give them enough warning. their engineers had to go through a lengthy retraining process. it's apparently not the kind of change you can gloss over in a weekend. the retraining required was substantial.
how much of that is an excuse, i don't know. but there's a reason that microsoft is widely acknowledged as incompetent. and the whole driver framework switch from xp to vista really demonstrates it.
even so, there's no excuse for this still being an issue, 8 years later.
i'm transferring files around right now, and this is a good example. it took almost ten minutes for me to transfer a few gb of files from my laptop (which is running a 64 bit windows 7, with a core i5 and 4 gb of ram - certainly better hardware specs on paper than my desktop) to a usb key. it took 30 seconds to transfer the same data from the same usb to my pc's hard drive, which is currently running an xp x64. if i were to do that on a fully patched vista, it would take ten hours.
ten hours!? yes. ten hours.
...because intel won't update the chipset to conform to the very different driver signing standards. the way windows handles drivers was a huge update from xp to vista.
i'm willing to accept that a lot of hardware manufacturers initially didn't understand how to rewrite their drivers for vista/7/etc. but, they did eventually figure it out. and there's really no excuse for not doing so, other than driving the hardware market.
it's a very widespread problem.
https://www.google.ca/#q=vista+slow+file+transfer&safe=off
all those answers are dead wrong. it's the change in driver framework.
(specifically, chipset drivers)
windows 98 is no longer useable for a number of reasons (for me it's mostly sata drivers), but it would be way faster than xp, too.
generally speaking, the older an operating system is, the faster it is (when compared on the same hardware). of course, it's going to have less functionality. it may be less safe to access the internet with, in theory if not in practice.
this may seem counter-intuitive, but it shouldn't. making something more complex makes it work slower. what doesn't make any sense at all is the idea that upgrading your os will make your machine run faster.
this is a brief explanation.
"If we're only using two isolation rings, it's a bit unclear where device drivers should go-- the code that allows us to use our video cards, keyboards, mice, printers, and so forth. Do these drivers run in Kernel mode, for maximum performance, or do they run in User mode, for maximum stability? In Windows, at least, the answer is it depends. Device drivers can run in either user or kernel mode. Most drivers are shunted to the User side of the fence these days, with the notable exception of video card drivers, which need bare-knuckle Kernel mode performance. But even that is changing; in Windows Vista, video drivers are segmented into User and Kernel sections. Perhaps that's why gamers complain that Vista performs about 10 percent slower in games. "
https://blog.codinghorror.com/understanding-user-and-kernel-mode/
this explains a bit about the actual problem, without getting into it. i don't really want to spend any more time looking around about this. it's something that nobody seems to want to be published. i wouldn't know this if it weren't for reading internal support memos that said DON'T TELL THE CUSTOMERS THIS all over them.
but, as i've stated, this is irreversible on some hardware, without getting the manufacturers to update their drivers. what's happening is that the drivers are running in kernel mode, when microsoft wants them to run in user mode. this is producing huge amounts of security checks (by design) that slow the fuck out of the file operations. what intel needs to do is rewrite their drivers to run in user mode, like microsoft wants them to do. but they'd rather blame it on vista and tell people they have to upgrade their hardware, as microsoft blames it on the hardware manufacturers (at least internally).
https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/hardware/drivers/wdf/user-mode-driver-framework-frequently-asked-questions
the result is unusable hardware, on any windows version beyond and including vista.
but, the design changes in how vista uses drivers make xp faster (by design) anyways.
you can think of it as a trade-off between speed and security. xp is all speed, weaker security. vista is all security. now as the hardware has caught up, it's evened out (in terms of perception). but xp remains inherently waaaaay faster.
i mean, this isn't entirely microsoft's fault. it's as much on intel and others (my problem is with intel, i don't know how much others have caught up. initially, nvidia was dragging their feet on this a whole lot.). but, what the hardware people were saying at the time was that microsoft didn't give them enough warning. their engineers had to go through a lengthy retraining process. it's apparently not the kind of change you can gloss over in a weekend. the retraining required was substantial.
how much of that is an excuse, i don't know. but there's a reason that microsoft is widely acknowledged as incompetent. and the whole driver framework switch from xp to vista really demonstrates it.
even so, there's no excuse for this still being an issue, 8 years later.
just a note that if you're still geek enough to be using xp (and i and others have very good reasons that will not change soon, if ever - i'm more likely to move to linux than a post-vista windows system, because they're really legitimately awful on a lot of levels) - support ends on april 8th. so, it's a good time to track down all the updates. if, for example, you've been relying on an sp2 disc and then running windows update whenever you reinstall, you won't be able to do that anymore.
somebody will no doubt do this and torrent it, but trusting them is another issue. better to do it yourself while you can.
there are hardware issues that jumped up in vista that never got solved. the only solution is to buy specific hardware. i mean, if you're running a pre-built system then you probably won't notice any of this. but, as deep and valid as the criticisms of apple are, you're better off with a mac than a dell or an hp....
there's a lot of fixes that don't work floating around. i actually worked support for vista and i will authoritatively tell you that microsoft's response is to blame it on the hardware.
yet, the same hardware works flawlessly with xp.
so, there's conspiracy theories floating around that probably have a lot of truth to them.
around '06, microsoft started loading it's operating systems up with meaningless services that are designed solely to require faster hardware. there's almost no functional use for any of this, except to coerce people into upgrading their systems. that much is really not debatable.
but you can turn that off. that's minor.
one of the bigger problems is with copy operations, and while it may be true that this is at it's core a problem with user-mode drivers (that is to say that the hardware people never made drivers that work properly with the security aspects of windows, post-vista), there's still this lingering question of whether the thing is by design.
what that means is that people with certain types of fairly modern hardware are stuck with xp, unless they want to upgrade central aspects of their system or deal with cripplingly bad file operations.
that's a very good reason to either stick with xp, or move to linux. microsoft isn't going to make an exception - they're going to blame it on the hardware manufacturers. and the hardware manufacturers are going to tell you to buy new hardware - and you'd better do the research to make sure the drivers work right.
for me, the precise issue is my board. but, i mean, it's a perfectly good asus with sata connectors that can handle up to 16 gb of ram. there's no good reason to upgrade this board. intel just won't fix the chipset drivers to work properly with the way windows does, post-vista.
but if i stick with xp, then i get full use of the board.
worse, the truth is that xp just performs better at core os functions for the simple reason that it's doing less things in the process. getting the drivers to work right will speed up file operations, but it will never be as fast as xp on the same hardware. that would defy basic logic; it would require doing more things in less time. nor does a home user need to care about the security functions that slow everything down...
so, again, it goes back to the conspiracy theory: were the security updates really necessary and were they really buckling to pressure to idiot-proof the os, or are they just driving the hardware market by literally introducing billions of empty cycles?
i'm hoping microsoft decides to do a final platform update or something that pulls everything together. that'll make life easier. but, i suspect that they won't. so...
april 8th.
somebody will no doubt do this and torrent it, but trusting them is another issue. better to do it yourself while you can.
there are hardware issues that jumped up in vista that never got solved. the only solution is to buy specific hardware. i mean, if you're running a pre-built system then you probably won't notice any of this. but, as deep and valid as the criticisms of apple are, you're better off with a mac than a dell or an hp....
there's a lot of fixes that don't work floating around. i actually worked support for vista and i will authoritatively tell you that microsoft's response is to blame it on the hardware.
yet, the same hardware works flawlessly with xp.
so, there's conspiracy theories floating around that probably have a lot of truth to them.
around '06, microsoft started loading it's operating systems up with meaningless services that are designed solely to require faster hardware. there's almost no functional use for any of this, except to coerce people into upgrading their systems. that much is really not debatable.
but you can turn that off. that's minor.
one of the bigger problems is with copy operations, and while it may be true that this is at it's core a problem with user-mode drivers (that is to say that the hardware people never made drivers that work properly with the security aspects of windows, post-vista), there's still this lingering question of whether the thing is by design.
what that means is that people with certain types of fairly modern hardware are stuck with xp, unless they want to upgrade central aspects of their system or deal with cripplingly bad file operations.
that's a very good reason to either stick with xp, or move to linux. microsoft isn't going to make an exception - they're going to blame it on the hardware manufacturers. and the hardware manufacturers are going to tell you to buy new hardware - and you'd better do the research to make sure the drivers work right.
for me, the precise issue is my board. but, i mean, it's a perfectly good asus with sata connectors that can handle up to 16 gb of ram. there's no good reason to upgrade this board. intel just won't fix the chipset drivers to work properly with the way windows does, post-vista.
but if i stick with xp, then i get full use of the board.
worse, the truth is that xp just performs better at core os functions for the simple reason that it's doing less things in the process. getting the drivers to work right will speed up file operations, but it will never be as fast as xp on the same hardware. that would defy basic logic; it would require doing more things in less time. nor does a home user need to care about the security functions that slow everything down...
so, again, it goes back to the conspiracy theory: were the security updates really necessary and were they really buckling to pressure to idiot-proof the os, or are they just driving the hardware market by literally introducing billions of empty cycles?
i'm hoping microsoft decides to do a final platform update or something that pulls everything together. that'll make life easier. but, i suspect that they won't. so...
april 8th.
i'm surprised that i was able to log into my school account, but i was. i was looking for a way to download 7, home premium due to the extra key i have. the links that are all over the internet are all corrupt. i've tried four times, and have given up.
they did, however, have a 64-bit xp, with key. well, that's the best option, really.
i should be able to reimage a 32-bit version based on an old compaq corporate image from about the year 2003. it's all patched up, and ready to be ripped apart.
so, i will come out of this with a 32/64 all-xp dual boot that i will plan to slowly transfer over to 64. first, i need to focus on replacing the dead hd. and i still need to know if i can get the script off.
getting a few more sticks of ram will help act as an incentive to the switch.
probably not today, but almost certainly tomorrow.
they did, however, have a 64-bit xp, with key. well, that's the best option, really.
i should be able to reimage a 32-bit version based on an old compaq corporate image from about the year 2003. it's all patched up, and ready to be ripped apart.
so, i will come out of this with a 32/64 all-xp dual boot that i will plan to slowly transfer over to 64. first, i need to focus on replacing the dead hd. and i still need to know if i can get the script off.
getting a few more sticks of ram will help act as an incentive to the switch.
probably not today, but almost certainly tomorrow.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
the new la dispute record is a little bit boring
well, we can't be young and full of energy for our whole lives. aging isn't preventable or reversible. the interesting part is how we adjust.
for the lyricist, it makes sense to move into more reflective, almost hip-hop type territory. yet, la dispute's strength (musically) has always been it's ability to cause a ruckus as the poetry climaxes. the notes didn't matter, it was all atmosphere. they couldn't be separated. as the lyricist softens, the band behind him simply isn't pulling off the shift to sounding like rem very well. the level of melodic introspection simply doesn't match the level of lyrical depth....
sometimes, age brings us closer to our friends as experiences solidify shared ideals and the depth of interests strengthen. other times, we outgrow our friends and move on. the future, of course, remains to be seen. yet, i can't help but think that the band would rather be rocking a little harder, and i'd definitely suggest that the lyricist could benefit from musicians that have a deeper sense of melody.
it's not ironic. it's universal. it's life.
for the lyricist, it makes sense to move into more reflective, almost hip-hop type territory. yet, la dispute's strength (musically) has always been it's ability to cause a ruckus as the poetry climaxes. the notes didn't matter, it was all atmosphere. they couldn't be separated. as the lyricist softens, the band behind him simply isn't pulling off the shift to sounding like rem very well. the level of melodic introspection simply doesn't match the level of lyrical depth....
sometimes, age brings us closer to our friends as experiences solidify shared ideals and the depth of interests strengthen. other times, we outgrow our friends and move on. the future, of course, remains to be seen. yet, i can't help but think that the band would rather be rocking a little harder, and i'd definitely suggest that the lyricist could benefit from musicians that have a deeper sense of melody.
it's not ironic. it's universal. it's life.
i just discovered presonus, though, which is
the newish project by some of the guys from cubase. no dongles. no
virtual dongles. that sounds like it's worth checking out.
i also want to check out reaper. the install is less than 10 mb. i'm a fan of light software...
...but in the end, it's going to be the same old. hopefully, i'm reinstalled by tomorrow.
i also want to check out reaper. the install is less than 10 mb. i'm a fan of light software...
...but in the end, it's going to be the same old. hopefully, i'm reinstalled by tomorrow.
bad iso.
ugh.
i won't do this a third time.
i'm going to end up mostly running 32 bit software. 32 bit software on a 64 bit os is a bad idea. i mean, it works, but it's pointless to upgrade if your key programs are 32 bit.
i was going to maintain a dual boot, anyways. but i'm thinking old xp - even broken - will still be dominant for the near future.
i built that machine - and this was many years ago now - to get up to 64 bit xp in time. expandable to 16 gb on the board was pretty advanced at the time, although i've never put in more than 4.
contrary to claims otherwise, moving to 64-bit from 32-bit with 4 gb of ram can get extra resources because 32-bit will inevitably ignore one of your sticks to fit the total (including the ram from your video card) under 4. it's not a max of 4 + bios + video + whatever else. it's 4. max. total. so, if i upgrade then i get another gb...
...but the reality is that setting the pagefile to 10 gb is just as good. the system may have to dump stuff to the drive here and there, but you never have to use more than 3 gb of ram all at the same time and if you did your system would crash because it couldn't.
i'm standing here all these years later and sort of laughing at myself. 64-bit is still a niche market. and i have to admit i don't see any real reason to upgrade, either. there's nothing i can think of that will work in 64 that doesn't in 32.
it's mostly the lack of evaluation software. there's lots of software i could buy. i can't afford to even think about that. so if i'm running everything in 32 anyways because it's all i can find then it's meaningless.
but it may be useful to have a non-broken system, from time to time.
yeah.
the problem with running 32 in 64 is that you're constantly converting it. what you're actually doing is running through a virtual machine. that's a net loss in speed (it may not be measurable, but it's a downgrade). considering the amount of drivers in use in sound production, that's bad news waiting to happen.
ugh.
i won't do this a third time.
i'm going to end up mostly running 32 bit software. 32 bit software on a 64 bit os is a bad idea. i mean, it works, but it's pointless to upgrade if your key programs are 32 bit.
i was going to maintain a dual boot, anyways. but i'm thinking old xp - even broken - will still be dominant for the near future.
i built that machine - and this was many years ago now - to get up to 64 bit xp in time. expandable to 16 gb on the board was pretty advanced at the time, although i've never put in more than 4.
contrary to claims otherwise, moving to 64-bit from 32-bit with 4 gb of ram can get extra resources because 32-bit will inevitably ignore one of your sticks to fit the total (including the ram from your video card) under 4. it's not a max of 4 + bios + video + whatever else. it's 4. max. total. so, if i upgrade then i get another gb...
...but the reality is that setting the pagefile to 10 gb is just as good. the system may have to dump stuff to the drive here and there, but you never have to use more than 3 gb of ram all at the same time and if you did your system would crash because it couldn't.
i'm standing here all these years later and sort of laughing at myself. 64-bit is still a niche market. and i have to admit i don't see any real reason to upgrade, either. there's nothing i can think of that will work in 64 that doesn't in 32.
it's mostly the lack of evaluation software. there's lots of software i could buy. i can't afford to even think about that. so if i'm running everything in 32 anyways because it's all i can find then it's meaningless.
but it may be useful to have a non-broken system, from time to time.
yeah.
the problem with running 32 in 64 is that you're constantly converting it. what you're actually doing is running through a virtual machine. that's a net loss in speed (it may not be measurable, but it's a downgrade). considering the amount of drivers in use in sound production, that's bad news waiting to happen.
i just realized i installed the wrong version of 7 on my laptop. it's a
home premium key on the back. i have a pro version i got from school,
that resulted from a wipe on the recovery console. i can't swap the keys
out without reinstalling, so i'm going to download home premium and try
that for my 64 bit escapade, instead.
it's what i should have done in the first place.
(i could call them, but it's not worth it. they never really fixed the copy issues in vista.)
a google search suggests it's still a problem with 7. well, i'll find out.
i highly doubt there are 32-bit linux drivers for my mixer, let alone 64-bit ones. it's not feasible.
it's what i should have done in the first place.
(i could call them, but it's not worth it. they never really fixed the copy issues in vista.)
a google search suggests it's still a problem with 7. well, i'll find out.
i highly doubt there are 32-bit linux drivers for my mixer, let alone 64-bit ones. it's not feasible.
currently reminding myself why vista is the wost operating system ever...
i mean, i can handle a little bit of performance degradation from an optimized xp to an out-of-the-box vista, at least for now. but my windows 98 computer (currently running xp) can transfer files faster. it's preposterously slow.
i don't have the interest in stripping it down the way i stripped down xp, but i'm going to try to vlite it before i essentially give up and stick with what is a half-broken xp. the cd install is the broken part. the scripts i lost in the hard drive crash were what fixed them...
....and then this no good, third rate os has the nerve to reject my perfectly valid product key. fuckers...
you are SO getting formatted, windows vista.
i actually worked vista support for a while, believe it or not. i wrote some of those kb articles. it was a fun job with good pay, even. canadian labour can't compete with labour in the philippines, though. and alas...
i mean, i can handle a little bit of performance degradation from an optimized xp to an out-of-the-box vista, at least for now. but my windows 98 computer (currently running xp) can transfer files faster. it's preposterously slow.
i don't have the interest in stripping it down the way i stripped down xp, but i'm going to try to vlite it before i essentially give up and stick with what is a half-broken xp. the cd install is the broken part. the scripts i lost in the hard drive crash were what fixed them...
....and then this no good, third rate os has the nerve to reject my perfectly valid product key. fuckers...
you are SO getting formatted, windows vista.
i actually worked vista support for a while, believe it or not. i wrote some of those kb articles. it was a fun job with good pay, even. canadian labour can't compete with labour in the philippines, though. and alas...
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
i happen to have one of those cords from an old phone. i may end up trying this, after i swap out the chips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZBsf-5iiDE
i have a .10, though, not a .11. the bug that affects the .11s doesn't affect my model.
regardless, if i can't get it to read, trying to hack in through hyperterminal is a third thing i can try.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZBsf-5iiDE
i have a .10, though, not a .11. the bug that affects the .11s doesn't affect my model.
regardless, if i can't get it to read, trying to hack in through hyperterminal is a third thing i can try.
i'm in a back-up mood, obviously.
i've never really liked the idea of forcing people to pay for mp3s. i'd never pay for one, myself. nor is streaming the best option for traveling. but these drive type options weren't really available, yet, either, so i rationalized to myself that if you're going to listen to it when you're on the bus then you can bloody well pay me for it....
the technology is here, though, now, so i'm going to use it. it'll take some time to upload, but my first 23 releases (and my 26th) will be available here in mp3 by this time tomorrow. i'll keep this up-to-date as i continue forwards.
https://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/
i've never really liked the idea of forcing people to pay for mp3s. i'd never pay for one, myself. nor is streaming the best option for traveling. but these drive type options weren't really available, yet, either, so i rationalized to myself that if you're going to listen to it when you're on the bus then you can bloody well pay me for it....
the technology is here, though, now, so i'm going to use it. it'll take some time to upload, but my first 23 releases (and my 26th) will be available here in mp3 by this time tomorrow. i'll keep this up-to-date as i continue forwards.
https://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/
yeah. i think if i just download everything from bandcamp, and repeat
the process of categorizing all the cd-rs and dvd-rs in the box...
it's not worth the amount recovery is going to cost. sadly.
tools or bust. i'll find out in two weeks.
musically, what i've lost is xml files and transitional pieces. parts to build tracks up, but nothing completed.
for right now, i'd rather spend the cash on a good external backup drive.
it's not worth the amount recovery is going to cost. sadly.
tools or bust. i'll find out in two weeks.
musically, what i've lost is xml files and transitional pieces. parts to build tracks up, but nothing completed.
for right now, i'd rather spend the cash on a good external backup drive.
on second thought, data recovery is much more expensive than i thought it would be.
there are two further troubleshooting steps i can try at the beginning of april, when i can get the right tools, but i think they're both low probability. i've resigned myself to needing somebody to open the drive up. that could take years to save up for...
obviously, i can't leave myself in suspended animation for that long. so, i'm going to take the opportunity to upgrade as much software as i can.
in the end, i'll have to decide if it's worth it. am i happy with a vanilla vista or a vanilla xp? do i really need to recover a few dozen source files for the sake of having them? or is the iso i'm about to reconstruct "good enough"?
i could see the drive sitting in a box for the next ten years gathering dust.
i absolutely must try those fixes, though. and if they don't work, and i'm happy with the replacement, i might get experimental about it.
there are two further troubleshooting steps i can try at the beginning of april, when i can get the right tools, but i think they're both low probability. i've resigned myself to needing somebody to open the drive up. that could take years to save up for...
obviously, i can't leave myself in suspended animation for that long. so, i'm going to take the opportunity to upgrade as much software as i can.
in the end, i'll have to decide if it's worth it. am i happy with a vanilla vista or a vanilla xp? do i really need to recover a few dozen source files for the sake of having them? or is the iso i'm about to reconstruct "good enough"?
i could see the drive sitting in a box for the next ten years gathering dust.
i absolutely must try those fixes, though. and if they don't work, and i'm happy with the replacement, i might get experimental about it.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
of course, i don't have the right sized screwdriver.
...and i just spent my last $20 for the month on fruit and vegetables....
powerless until april. guess i'll grab a book...
well, i guess i can try the store tomorrow. maybe they'll even let me use a screwdriver.
there's no use in installing on the backup drive, because it's going to be wiped out as soon as i get the data recovered. by the time i can use the os, i'll be writing over it.
...and i just spent my last $20 for the month on fruit and vegetables....
powerless until april. guess i'll grab a book...
well, i guess i can try the store tomorrow. maybe they'll even let me use a screwdriver.
there's no use in installing on the backup drive, because it's going to be wiped out as soon as i get the data recovered. by the time i can use the os, i'll be writing over it.
i'm hoping it's this easy.
i'm going to stumble out to the local store tomorrow and see if they'll just plug it in for me to check.
i wasn't able to try it from an e-sata 'cause i don't actually have the right cable.
i mean, the data is there. i should be able to get it off. it seems like the power is broken. it's not whirring, it's just not reading.
i need it to bypass the bios somehow to determine if it's the power or not. if it's the power, i'm going to have to pay somebody to replace it...
the only other thing i can think of is that the self-test is failing, and that's why it's neither whirring nor being read by the bios. still reduces to paying somebody to swap it out.
i'm going to stumble out to the local store tomorrow and see if they'll just plug it in for me to check.
i wasn't able to try it from an e-sata 'cause i don't actually have the right cable.
i mean, the data is there. i should be able to get it off. it seems like the power is broken. it's not whirring, it's just not reading.
i need it to bypass the bios somehow to determine if it's the power or not. if it's the power, i'm going to have to pay somebody to replace it...
the only other thing i can think of is that the self-test is failing, and that's why it's neither whirring nor being read by the bios. still reduces to paying somebody to swap it out.
rap news 23
L00NGB00W
Gotta ask, are you guys affiliated with RT?
selvmordspilot
afaik they're based in australia. I'm afraid it's the other way around. RT has gotten their hands on some great journalists - that are worth featuring in the rap news. #powerfulabbymartin
deathtokoalas
they are recently, yes. check their facebook page.
L00NGB00W
I can see no evidence of this.
dangerouslytalented
They have some great journalists, and are not afraid to use them... But only if and when the facts are on the Kremlin's side. The problem is when the facts are not on the Kremlin's side, whoops journalism broke.
selvmordspilot
true, and it's still up to us to decide who to believe in these matters.
dangerouslytalented
... basically, if Russia has a vested interest in not telling the truth, then don't trust them.
deathtokoalas
all media has a motive, otherwise it wouldn't exist. i mean, it's not like rap news is void of bias, either, we just all like their biases. so, i dunno why people have this naive perception that some media is more trustworthy than other media. all media is full of lies; it would't exist if it wasn't. and the other response consequently gets it right. you have to be constantly skeptical....
dangerouslytalented
That completely depends on what the motives are, Take the Guardian for example, their business model relies on their integrity. If they sell that, then there is no more money. Ever.
L00NGB00W
Assuming that all media is lies borders on paranoia.
One must take the stories with a grain of salt, and realize there is bias.
The idea of the fifth estate is to report on the actions of those in power. With enough viewpoints, one can piece together the truth.
deathtokoalas
the guardian is one of the worst advocates of liberal imperialistic bullshit and general state apologism out there. their coverage of foreign conflicts often seems written by the british state department, if not by the cia. kind of like the new york times, actually, which markets itself as relying on integrity, but is basically state media. both cnn and fox claim to be "trusted" as well; generally, when "trust" is a part of your advertising campaigns, that's a flag not to trust you. to see how bad the guardian is, all you have to do is read the independent, who is a rare source in the western world. you can at least vaguely trust the general idea of what they're presenting. but, even they have certain lines that they need to be artistic in dancing around.
@L00NGB00W it's not paranoia, it's a type of hypothesis testing. the null hypothesis is that what they're telling me is bullshit. now, can enough evidence be generated to reject that null hypothesis?
i suppose scientists are just a bunch of schizophrenics, living in a delusional fantasy reality.
we need more scientific thinking, to increase the bar so to speak, not vague accusations of paranoia and more pandering to rupert murdoch.
L00NGB00W
There you go. Case in point.
I'm not pandering to Rupert Murdoch, he manipulates the news. <_<
Assuming everything is a conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Even if it were... One true news article would debunk said hypothesis.
Weigh each story on an individual basis. And skeptically if it is merited.
Pretty sure I am the one thinking scientifically here.
deathtokoalas
you don't know what science is, clearly.
this is painful: "Assuming everything is a conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Even if it were... One true news article would debunk said hypothesis."
and i'm just going to request that you stop, educate yourself and come back.
L00NGB00W
Ugh.
The truth is painful sometimes. ^_^
I will stop now. But I will not return.
It's not like I have anything to gain from this conversation, other than enlightening someone.
Good day to you. ;)
deathtokoalas
can somebody other than me explain what a null hypothesis is and why the statement that it can be contradicted with a single counter-example is hilariously misinformed?
L00NGB00W
Sure, I'll explain it to you with an example. ;)
Hypothesis: Squirrels are eating my strawberries.
Null Hypothesis: Squirrels are not eating my strawberries.
Experiment: Set up a camera to see what is eating my strawberries...
Result: squirrels.
Hence, the Null hypothesis is contradicted.
LOGIC
You're welcome. ;)
deathtokoalas
that's right. now, what happens when you apply that to the question of whether media coverage is accurate or not?
(note that i'm being generous for brevity, there's no use in getting picky about the language given that the discussion is circling around an idea)
this is all getting to the point that if you want to approach the question of media truth with a scientific perspective, you begin by assuming falsity and then generate evidence otherwise. that doesn't mean you should be calculating p-values to analyze the evening news and it doesn't mean you need to walk around with a tinfoil hat on, literally or figuratively. it's just a rule of thumb, in context. one could summarize it with the word skepticism.
...and to clear up that loose end (if it's not clear), suggesting that finding one "counter-example" (which in this case would be an honest newscast, and these do certainly exist) proves that all media is correct is one of those classical logical fallacies. i'm pretty stingy with my likes, but i'll +1 the first person that points it out.
L00NGB00W
Same. But your original statement was that 'all media is biased', Not whether 'all media is accurate'. They're rather different statements.
With the former, finding one contradiction invalidates the Null hypothesis.
With the latter, all media would have to be true to falsify the null. Which it isn't.
Perhaps I'm just being picky.
deathtokoalas
yeah, you very much misunderstood what i said. the statement "all media is full of lies" is not the same thing as "all media is solely lies". and if you could find me a media source that's never lied, i'd be interested in hearing what it is. further, you couldn't do a meaningful test on the question of "is all media solely lies?" because you're not dealing with a specific enough question. i mean, sure, a counter-example would demonstrate it false, but it's an absurd statement to begin with. hypothesis testing has to work in a more specific context than that. i thought that was obvious, but apparently not.
it's again a basic fallacy. x is in Y does not meant Y only consists of x.
what you could do, i suppose, is generate a data set of broadcasts from a single news source and then ask "does this specific news source lie?". but that's about as broad as the method allows for (and perhaps badly (but, with some sources, perhaps reasonably - it's a question) sets all reporters as equivalent), and is something different altogether.
i was working on the assumption of analyzing claims on a statement-by-statement basis by beginning with the perspective that, because all media is full of lies, skepticism is perpetually required.
i couldn't imagine anybody not realizing that.
dangerouslytalented
There are two classes: "trust but verify", and "these guys are full of horseshit, if I want to know about this story, I am going to go somewhere else for the primary source".
L00NGB00W
No I did not, but I'm tired of arguing with you.
"It's an absurd statement to begin with."
Yes. Precisely. Some reporting is honest and accurate, some isn't.
Good day.
deathtokoalas
well, it works out to the same thing in the end. you're presenting a categorization of required rigour, if anything. i think it's largely illusory, and reduces to your own biases. one person will put fox in a and democracy now in b, and the other will flip them around. in the end, you're doing your homework, either way. that's the important part.
personally, i think it's more worthwhile to figure out what the biases are so that they can be actively countered. this whole crimea thing has actually been useful, as it's brought some closet communists out (and hopelessly misguided ones, given that russia is currently the most right-wing of any major country, including the united states. one might even call them useful idiots.).
Gotta ask, are you guys affiliated with RT?
selvmordspilot
afaik they're based in australia. I'm afraid it's the other way around. RT has gotten their hands on some great journalists - that are worth featuring in the rap news. #powerfulabbymartin
deathtokoalas
they are recently, yes. check their facebook page.
L00NGB00W
I can see no evidence of this.
dangerouslytalented
They have some great journalists, and are not afraid to use them... But only if and when the facts are on the Kremlin's side. The problem is when the facts are not on the Kremlin's side, whoops journalism broke.
selvmordspilot
true, and it's still up to us to decide who to believe in these matters.
dangerouslytalented
... basically, if Russia has a vested interest in not telling the truth, then don't trust them.
deathtokoalas
all media has a motive, otherwise it wouldn't exist. i mean, it's not like rap news is void of bias, either, we just all like their biases. so, i dunno why people have this naive perception that some media is more trustworthy than other media. all media is full of lies; it would't exist if it wasn't. and the other response consequently gets it right. you have to be constantly skeptical....
dangerouslytalented
That completely depends on what the motives are, Take the Guardian for example, their business model relies on their integrity. If they sell that, then there is no more money. Ever.
L00NGB00W
Assuming that all media is lies borders on paranoia.
One must take the stories with a grain of salt, and realize there is bias.
The idea of the fifth estate is to report on the actions of those in power. With enough viewpoints, one can piece together the truth.
deathtokoalas
the guardian is one of the worst advocates of liberal imperialistic bullshit and general state apologism out there. their coverage of foreign conflicts often seems written by the british state department, if not by the cia. kind of like the new york times, actually, which markets itself as relying on integrity, but is basically state media. both cnn and fox claim to be "trusted" as well; generally, when "trust" is a part of your advertising campaigns, that's a flag not to trust you. to see how bad the guardian is, all you have to do is read the independent, who is a rare source in the western world. you can at least vaguely trust the general idea of what they're presenting. but, even they have certain lines that they need to be artistic in dancing around.
@L00NGB00W it's not paranoia, it's a type of hypothesis testing. the null hypothesis is that what they're telling me is bullshit. now, can enough evidence be generated to reject that null hypothesis?
i suppose scientists are just a bunch of schizophrenics, living in a delusional fantasy reality.
we need more scientific thinking, to increase the bar so to speak, not vague accusations of paranoia and more pandering to rupert murdoch.
L00NGB00W
There you go. Case in point.
I'm not pandering to Rupert Murdoch, he manipulates the news. <_<
Assuming everything is a conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Even if it were... One true news article would debunk said hypothesis.
Weigh each story on an individual basis. And skeptically if it is merited.
Pretty sure I am the one thinking scientifically here.
deathtokoalas
you don't know what science is, clearly.
this is painful: "Assuming everything is a conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Even if it were... One true news article would debunk said hypothesis."
and i'm just going to request that you stop, educate yourself and come back.
L00NGB00W
Ugh.
The truth is painful sometimes. ^_^
I will stop now. But I will not return.
It's not like I have anything to gain from this conversation, other than enlightening someone.
Good day to you. ;)
deathtokoalas
can somebody other than me explain what a null hypothesis is and why the statement that it can be contradicted with a single counter-example is hilariously misinformed?
L00NGB00W
Sure, I'll explain it to you with an example. ;)
Hypothesis: Squirrels are eating my strawberries.
Null Hypothesis: Squirrels are not eating my strawberries.
Experiment: Set up a camera to see what is eating my strawberries...
Result: squirrels.
Hence, the Null hypothesis is contradicted.
LOGIC
You're welcome. ;)
deathtokoalas
that's right. now, what happens when you apply that to the question of whether media coverage is accurate or not?
(note that i'm being generous for brevity, there's no use in getting picky about the language given that the discussion is circling around an idea)
this is all getting to the point that if you want to approach the question of media truth with a scientific perspective, you begin by assuming falsity and then generate evidence otherwise. that doesn't mean you should be calculating p-values to analyze the evening news and it doesn't mean you need to walk around with a tinfoil hat on, literally or figuratively. it's just a rule of thumb, in context. one could summarize it with the word skepticism.
...and to clear up that loose end (if it's not clear), suggesting that finding one "counter-example" (which in this case would be an honest newscast, and these do certainly exist) proves that all media is correct is one of those classical logical fallacies. i'm pretty stingy with my likes, but i'll +1 the first person that points it out.
L00NGB00W
Same. But your original statement was that 'all media is biased', Not whether 'all media is accurate'. They're rather different statements.
With the former, finding one contradiction invalidates the Null hypothesis.
With the latter, all media would have to be true to falsify the null. Which it isn't.
Perhaps I'm just being picky.
deathtokoalas
yeah, you very much misunderstood what i said. the statement "all media is full of lies" is not the same thing as "all media is solely lies". and if you could find me a media source that's never lied, i'd be interested in hearing what it is. further, you couldn't do a meaningful test on the question of "is all media solely lies?" because you're not dealing with a specific enough question. i mean, sure, a counter-example would demonstrate it false, but it's an absurd statement to begin with. hypothesis testing has to work in a more specific context than that. i thought that was obvious, but apparently not.
it's again a basic fallacy. x is in Y does not meant Y only consists of x.
what you could do, i suppose, is generate a data set of broadcasts from a single news source and then ask "does this specific news source lie?". but that's about as broad as the method allows for (and perhaps badly (but, with some sources, perhaps reasonably - it's a question) sets all reporters as equivalent), and is something different altogether.
i was working on the assumption of analyzing claims on a statement-by-statement basis by beginning with the perspective that, because all media is full of lies, skepticism is perpetually required.
i couldn't imagine anybody not realizing that.
dangerouslytalented
There are two classes: "trust but verify", and "these guys are full of horseshit, if I want to know about this story, I am going to go somewhere else for the primary source".
L00NGB00W
No I did not, but I'm tired of arguing with you.
"It's an absurd statement to begin with."
Yes. Precisely. Some reporting is honest and accurate, some isn't.
Good day.
deathtokoalas
well, it works out to the same thing in the end. you're presenting a categorization of required rigour, if anything. i think it's largely illusory, and reduces to your own biases. one person will put fox in a and democracy now in b, and the other will flip them around. in the end, you're doing your homework, either way. that's the important part.
personally, i think it's more worthwhile to figure out what the biases are so that they can be actively countered. this whole crimea thing has actually been useful, as it's brought some closet communists out (and hopelessly misguided ones, given that russia is currently the most right-wing of any major country, including the united states. one might even call them useful idiots.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)